Myth of Ho Chi Minh waging guerrilla war on and defeating the Japanese

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

Today, there is a popular view of Ho Chi Minh having leading the VietMinh in wagin a guerrilla war on the Japanese . In fact Vietnamese school textbooks and general history books go as far as stating Ho Chi Minh and the VietMinh rebels defeated the Japanese!In fact this myth is so far fledge that even the PBS(channel broadcastedin the United States) and the British Broadcasting state this myth!From their official sites:

 

Among the 20th century revolutionaries' date=' Ho Chi Minh waged the longest -- and in terms of human lives sacrificed, the costliest -- battle against colonial power. The forces he led fought and defeated the Japanese, the French and finally the Americans in his fight for Vietnamese independence.(1)

[/quote']

 

After the Japanese invasion of Indo-China in 1941' date=' Ho returned home and founded the Viet Minh, a communist-dominated independence movement, to fight the Japanese. He adopted the name Ho Chi Minh, meaning 'Bringer of Light'.(2)

[/quote']

 

Reality is that HCM and the VietMinh actually did minimal actions to harm the Japanese. At most the VietMinh rescued American pilots who crashed into Vietnam and give them refugee until they were returned to the Allies.This "cooperation" in the evacuation of Allied airmen was payment for weapon supplies from US forces which the VietMinh will use later in their war against the French and American. It was not out of trying to rebel against the Japanese but trying to empower the VietMinh so the organization would be the most influential and powerful rebel party in Vietnam!(3)

 

No real anti-Japanese activity ever occurred.In fact if anything,there is abundant evidence Ho Chi Minh cooperated with them in the rounding up and murder of French soldiers and civilians.Not only that but Ho Chi Minhe even betrayed his own cause and countrymen, selling out Vietnamese nationalists to the Japanese and the French for gold! This served not only to enrich his coffers but also to eliminate the competition with other Vietnamese nationalist groups and rebels in taking control of the country after the Japanese left Vietnam by the end of WW2.(3)(4)

 

The fighting against the Japanese was almost nonexistent saved for a few small individual skirmishes of no importance by other Vietnamese Resistance Groups or individuals not related or allied to the VietMinh. Basically the VietMinh just sat there and did nothing to prevent Japanese attrocities and to defend Vietnamese civilians from harm by the Imperial Japanese Army.(5)

 

If Ho Chi Minh really was a freedom fighter, why didn't he fight the Japanese? The Japanese occupation of Vietnam was much more barbaric than the French and American occupation of Vietnam has ever been!The French heavily and built the first links between north and south Vietnam, and vast flood control systems on the Red River Delta to make it very productive. The Japanese destroyed these works in 1945 causing a massive famine, and the deft communists(VietMinh) blamed this on the French.Not only that but there would incidents of massacres of groups of civilian Vietnamese by the Japanese for no other reason but for fun!During the Japanese occupation so much of the male populations were forced to work for the Japanese in factories under miserable conditions with no wages. Additionally during Japanese occupation, Vietnamese women were dragged out of their houses and sent to brothels to be sex slaves for the Japanese!(5)

 

 

Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh knew the Japanese were going to be defeated anyway and it did not politically serve them to promote hatred of the Japanese.But if Ho Chi Minh was really the freedom fighter that general history books and popular media make him out to be, why didn't he lead the VietMinh fight the Japanese whose occupation of Vietnam was much worse than any period of occupation by the French and Americans?!Why did Ho Chi Minh betray his fellow countrymen of other rebel groups(who were really devoted to fighting for Vietnam's freedom at any cost) well in fact he could have allied with them against the Japanese and later the French?

 

This all puts doubt into the credibility of the belief that Ho Chi Minh was a saint who was fighting for his country's freedom. If he really was a freedom fighter, he should have been fighting the Japanese during their brutal occupation or at least give supplies and weapons to the other Vietnamese rebel groups while he was building up the VietMinh's organization and power.Its unfortunate that many myths of Ho Chi Minh are still told as though they are facts by General History Books and Popular Media and this specific myth of Ho Chi Minh resisting the Japanese remains prevalent and seen by the general public as fact.

 

 

Sources:

(1)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/peopleevents/p_minh.html

(2)http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/ho_chi_minh.shtml

(3)The Oss and Ho Chi Minh: Unexpected Allies in the War Against Japan By Dixee R. Bartholomew-feis

(4)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1021097/posts

(5)The Last Valley by Martin Windrows

[Centurion-Macro]

Ho Chi Minh was a great man.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

Ho Chi Minh was a great man.

Since you are probably mainly a specialist in Roman history, I understand why you have this view. This is the common portrayal of Ho Chi Minh in General History Books and Popular Media. The reality is more complex than Ho Chi Minh being a Saint.If anything, Ho Chi Minh was a hypocrite to his beliefs!Check this link:

http://thegioi-viet-gi-ve-han.blogspot.com/2008/02/vietnams-ho-chi-minh-myth_10.html

Ho Chi Minh is not the noble man he is often made out to be in mainstream history. Us specialists in the Indochina Wars knows Ho Chi Minh was a sinister hungry power person.

[CiceroD]

Since you are probably mainly a specialist in Roman history, I understand why you have this view. This is the common portrayal of Ho Chi Minh in General History Books and Popular Media. The reality is more complex than Ho Chi Minh being a Saint.If anything, Ho Chi Minh was a hypocrite to his beliefs!Check this link:

http://thegioi-viet-gi-ve-han.blogspot.com/2008/02/vietnams-ho-chi-minh-myth_10.html

Ho Chi Minh is not the noble man he is often made out to be in mainstream history. Us specialists in the Indochina Wars knows Ho Chi Minh was a sinister hungry power person.

 

"Better to win by admitting my sin than to lose with a halo" From Evita

Nothing new in the extremely ambitious guerilla leader who thinks that the ends justify the means.

 

At that point though (During WWII) was Ho Chi Minh communist? Or did he align himself as such after the Nationalists in China were pushed to Taiwan and he could count on support from Mao?

Edited March 6, 2011 by CiceroD

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

Since you are probably mainly a specialist in Roman history, I understand why you have this view. This is the common portrayal of Ho Chi Minh in General History Books and Popular Media. The reality is more complex than Ho Chi Minh being a Saint.If anything, Ho Chi Minh was a hypocrite to his beliefs!Check this link:

http://thegioi-viet-gi-ve-han.blogspot.com/2008/02/vietnams-ho-chi-minh-myth_10.html

Ho Chi Minh is not the noble man he is often made out to be in mainstream history. Us specialists in the Indochina Wars knows Ho Chi Minh was a sinister hungry power person.

 

"Better to win by admitting my sin than to lose with a halo" From Evita

Nothing new in the extremely ambitious guerilla leader who thinks that the ends justify the means.

 

At that point though (During WWII) was Ho Chi Minh communist? Or did he align himself as such after the Nationalists in China were pushed to Taiwan and he could count on support from Mao?

Ho Chi Minh was really communist from the start-its a myth he only joined the communists and had an alliance with the USSR and China out of necessity.Ho Chi Minh was a lifelong communist who used communist propoganda and aid to get into power. This heavily commie-biased article which was written on the founding of the Indochinese communist party already shows that Ho Chi Minh was a communist in the 1930s, long before WW2.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1930/02/18.htm

Edited March 7, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[Centurion-Macro]

Ho Chi Minh was a great man.

Since you are probably mainly a specialist in Roman history, I understand why you have this view. This is the common portrayal of Ho Chi Minh in General History Books and Popular Media. The reality is more complex than Ho Chi Minh being a Saint.If anything, Ho Chi Minh was a hypocrite to his beliefs!Check this link:

http://thegioi-viet-gi-ve-han.blogspot.com/2008/02/vietnams-ho-chi-minh-myth_10.html

Ho Chi Minh is not the noble man he is often made out to be in mainstream history. Us specialists in the Indochina Wars knows Ho Chi Minh was a sinister hungry power person.

Ah, but my friend, I am a proud socialist. I know all about him murdering the Trotskyists and his hate for anyone else who wanted to lead the movement. However, you can not deny the loyalty he inspired in his followers. He was pivotal in the fight against the French and the Americans, and I believe that he contributed a lot to Vietnam's independence. And he also would have been the worlds first democratically elected leader had not the US blocked the elections.

 

He was not a saint, but he did care for his country. And while his brand of communism I do not agree with, I believe that he was a good man, and I would gladly argue for him in any argument.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

Ho Chi Minh was a great man.

Since you are probably mainly a specialist in Roman history, I understand why you have this view. This is the common portrayal of Ho Chi Minh in General History Books and Popular Media. The reality is more complex than Ho Chi Minh being a Saint.If anything, Ho Chi Minh was a hypocrite to his beliefs!Check this link:

http://thegioi-viet-gi-ve-han.blogspot.com/2008/02/vietnams-ho-chi-minh-myth_10.html

Ho Chi Minh is not the noble man he is often made out to be in mainstream history. Us specialists in the Indochina Wars knows Ho Chi Minh was a sinister hungry power person.

Ah, but my friend, I am a proud socialist. I know all about him murdering the Trotskyists and his hate for anyone else who wanted to lead the movement. However, you can not deny the loyalty he inspired in his followers. He was pivotal in the fight against the French and the Americans, and I believe that he contributed a lot to Vietnam's independence. And he also would have been the worlds first democratically elected leader had not the US blocked the elections.

 

He was not a saint, but he did care for his country. And while his brand of communism I do not agree with, I believe that he was a good man, and I would gladly argue for him in any argument.

 

Well your opinion-lets Communism VS Capitalism involved. However Miss Saigon, a South Vietnamese user and several other South Vietnamese who retain their heritage would disagree with you.

 

There's no denying that Ho Chi Minh was charismatcic and able to lure in a number of people into hi scause.

 

But FYI for everyone , the war against the French was not a war of colonialism-it may have started as one, but by the middle of the war(1950-51 period) the war has turned into one against communism-a considerable number of former VietMinh were joining the French once they realized Ho Chi Minh's true intention. If anything, most Vietnamese were simply going on their lives without caring for the conflict while numerous factions were joining either the VietMinh or what would become the ARVN(other words they would fight along the French)during much of the war.

 

And you are wrong about Ho Chi Minh fighting for Vietnam's independence during the AMerican Vietnam War-The population that supported the Communists already had their own nation(North Vietnam). In the Vietnam War if anything, Ho Chi Minh was waging a war of aggression about South Vietnamese(who contrary to popular belief actually supported their nation).A good book on the subject is On Strategy by Harry Summers.

[Ludovicus]

That there were two countries at war with each other, an aggressive North Vietnam and unjustly attacked South Vietnam, was a fiction promoted by US war hawks during the 1960's. It's purpose was to gin up support for the Vietnam War.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Ludovicus

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

That there were two countries at war with each other, an aggressive North Vietnam and unjustly attacked South Vietnam, was a fiction promoted by US war hawks during the 1960's. It's purpose was to gin up support for the Vietnam War.

I understand why you have this view-stupid liberals have been spreading lies and myths about Vietnam and unfortunately they were taken as accepted facts of the war. South Vietnam was really its own nation and North Vietnam was really an agressor, non of it was fictional propoganda made by the right.

 

To understand the Vietnam War, once has to understand VIetnamese history. It will be long to put all of it here, but as a summery, North Vietnam and South Vietnam were never one united nation and culture until recent years.From what I wrote from antoher site:

 

1)South Vietnam was always culturally different from North Vietnam

2)South Vietnam is a whole mess of different ethnic group and factions while North Vietnam is homogenous

3)There have been centuries of wars between North and South during different periods in Vietnam's history.The Militaristic North were at war with the more laid back South during different periods in Vietnamese history. Both North and South Vietnam had so many differences that they were more like different nations than 1 united country.

 

Its not the (warhawks of the)United States' fault why there is animosity between the 2-its something that been going on since centuries long before the Americans(and even French)came. There are just too many differences for North and South that always existed before Europeans even knew of Vietnam one has to learn in order to understand. VIETNAM WAS ALWAYS AS DIVIDED IN ITS HISTORY AS KOREA IS TODAY!In fact the North and Southern Vietnamese aren't even the same ethnic groups with the South having a whole variety of subcultures.

 

Its only natural taht such animosity would exist even if the French and Americans never got involved with Vietnam at all.

Edited March 10, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[Melvadius]

I ssupect that everyone falls for some of the myths surrounding Vietnam as they are many and numerous - not simply relating to differences of interpretation but also actual selectivity in what is recorded in various sources by Marxist/ Liberal/ Nationalist/ pro- or anti-American et al writers in the late 20th/ early 21st centuries.

 

Glancing at Wikipedia if the maps shown there are anywhere near accurate then the creation of Vietnam seems to have taken place well before the arrival of France in the mid-nineteenth century and effectively resistance to the French breaking up of the 'unified' Vietnam continuing long after their arrival and arbitrary province creation.

 

Extensive discussion of this topic would seem however to be more appropriate for a specialist Vietnam forum than on a site mainly concerned with Roman history.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

I ssupect that everyone falls for some of the myths surrounding Vietnam as they are many and numerous - not simply relating to differences of interpretation but also actual selectivity in what is recorded in various sources by Marxist/ Liberal/ Nationalist/ pro- or anti-American et al writers in the late 20th/ early 21st centuries.

 

Glancing at Wikipedia if the maps shown there are anywhere near accurate then the creation of Vietnam seems to have taken place well before the arrival of France in the mid-nineteenth century and effectively resistance to the French breaking up of the 'unified' Vietnam continuing long after their arrival and arbitrary province creation.

 

Extensive discussion of this topic would seem however to be more appropriate for a specialist Vietnam forum than on a site mainly concerned with Roman history.

Depends on the time period and which specific Vietnamese civilization(its best to ask for book recommendations which I could give you a list of readings). Even in the period when Vietnam was united under a single nation, there was still big cultureal differences and animosity between the North and South;heck the South wasn't even United culturally and politically during these periods and when South Vietnam existed as a sovereign nation.There were over 50 different ethnic groups and cultures in South Vietnam that had hostilities towards each other throughout Vietnamese history and this was partially why South Vietnam had difficulties in managing itself(made all the worse by the invasions by the North Vietnamese). The French did not break a unified Vietnam, the region was already dvidied. In fact the South and Central Vietnamese had favorable attitude towards the French during the early occupation. It would be the North Vietnamese who would take longest to conquer and annex into the French empire and even then there was often individual rebel groups against the French during the prtiod of French annexation. If anything, most of the VietMinh who fought the French came from Northern Vietnam and almost every battle including Dien Bien Phu and operations took place in North Vietnam during the Indochina War.

 

Its very complex, several books including On Strategy by Summers explain it better than I could.

 

Anyway this reminds me on a question I have on barbarians(I will post this on the Glory of the Roman Legion Section).

Edited March 10, 2011 by SassinidAzatan